1 2025:CGHC:34973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 685 of 2022 Mohammad Ameen Khan S/o Mohammad Yaseen Khan, Aged About 63 Years, Through - Gopal Yadav Bandhpara Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Mohammad Faiyyaz Alam S/o Mohammad Ameen Khan Aged About 35 Years Occupation Service And Agriculture, R/o Village Umjhar, Post Nagar, P.S. Charcha, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Ghritlahre, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.46/2019, whereby the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been rejected. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 10:58:09 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the present application had filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent on the ground that the applicant is a retired SECL employee and he is sick person, after retirement, he is suffering much hardships and he is not in a position to meet his regular expenses of treatment and other personal dire necessities and the respondent is the son of the applicant and the applicant has been expelled from his own house and respondents had taken the possession of his entire property. The applicant has purchased a house of 10 rooms i.e. Pakka house and the possession whereof has been taken by his wife and the respondent Faiyyaz Alam and thereafter, the applicant is residing taking shelter of his acquaintances. Moreover, in a separate case of Section 125 of CrPC filed by other son of the applicant, namely Aftab Alam who is blind by both the eyes the maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month has been granted by the Family Court, which the applicant is paying regularly to Aftab Alam. After the retirement only Rs. 19,000/- is received by the applicant as pension and he resides with his other family members, therefore, with such meager amount it has become next to impossible to survive, therefore, the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, Koriya. The learned Family Court after issuance of notice to the other party recorded the evidence and decided the case on merits and was pleased to have dismissed the application of the revisioner denying maintenance, hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order impugned is tainted with illegality, perversity as well as anomalies, so it deserves to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court. The learned Family Court has utterly failed that the senior citizen about 70 years is suffering 3 hardships after retirement and his son is not taking care of his health and his expenses, therefore, the order is against spirit of Section 125 of CrPC, therefore, it is not sustainable. The learned Family Court should have gone through the documentary evidence on record and the finding based on the material should have been recorded not on the conjectures and surmises, apart from this the Family Court has not considered the evidence of the revisioner. The issues which have been formulated have wrongly been determined by the Family Court, whereas the revisioner is not able to maintenance on the other hand that the respondent is an able bodied person and fully capable of maintaining his father, hence the denial of maintenance to the old aged father is a very callous approach which cannot be allowed to stand. The Family Court should have taken the benevolent view while dealing with the application for maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that it is shown from the documents that the agricultural land and insurance policy were taken by the respondent ten years ago. On the basis of which the current income of the respondent cannot be determined. Even if we assume the income of the respondent to be equal to that of a normal person, the applicant is still receiving more pension amount than him. After considering the above evidence, it is proved that the applicant is capable of supporting himself. Therefore, the application submitted by the applicant under section 125 Cr.P.C. is rejected. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti